[andyfox]

"Klein also claims that Israel's operational goals had more to do with 'deterrence' than actual revenge"

I can't remember the exact words, but the movie does show Golda Meir saying something like the world needs to know there's a price to be paid for killing Jews.

"Spielberg has claimed in interviews that he wants to raise questions about the cycle of Israeli-Palestinian violence, but other than some rhetorical dialogue it's hard to find where he did. After all, the victims in the movie are all psychotic Arab terrorists or their enablers"

I thought the final shot was a summary of Speilberg's thoughts, namely, as one of the characters says, violence leads only to more violence. One of the victims was shown as a scholarly interpreter of books. Another was shown as an intellectual family man living an apparently upper class/bourgeois life in Paris.

Jeffrey Rush's character was particularly unlikable, deliberately so. The assassination squad's handlers don't really care what they do, so long as they get their revenge. I thought Spielberg was trying to show that evil can be found anywhere, hence the seemingly casual meeting with Meir and others where there is a lot of talk about getting receipts for the expenses of killing, but not about justice or morality.

Spielberg has been a big supporter of Israel and Jewish causes. This movie represents a big step for him from where he's been. I eat at his mother's restaurant and I can tell you it's a major step for him. As I posted elsewhere, I've seen him at our temple and his daughter has to attend under an assumed name. I see Munich as a personal exploration of why that has to be. He's one of the biggest names, if not the biggest in Hollywood history; I think a fair comparison might be how he deals with issues compared to, say, Louis B. Mayer. Speilberg comes out well in the comparison.

Have you seen Paradise Now?